Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter

Table 6-23 Respiratory Sx, lung function and biomarker effects.. What biomarkers areinvestigated? I didn’t find any. Table 6-22 (asthmatic subjects) is entitled just Sx and lungfunction.6-216 6.4.1 This section appears to belong in ch 9??5-225-227 Is it commonly accepted that SO2 cannot be a confounder for PM???5-226 Discussion of the use of factor analysis is a good addition.5-238 Mention of the Lipsett (1997) study is an opportunity to mention the role of wwod smokeas a constituent of PM. This should have been emphasized. In general there is notenough use of the role of geographical differences in PM composition as a means ofunderstanding the toxic components.5-246 Discussion of thresholds. If individual responses to PM prevent establishment of athreshold, how does that fit with the language of the CAA that requires setting a NAAQSfor the most sensitive members of society??5-266 6.5 Conclusions# 2. Would it be more useful to describe heterogeneity as geographic differences in thecomposition of PM?#3 I think short term v long term exposures need to be considered very, very carefully. We donot know to what extent prior exposure to air pollution is involved in the premature death casesin the short-term time series studies.#4 The CF data may be telling us that there are geographic differences in PM#5 This conclusion highlights effects during early pregnancy and post-natal periods. Howeverthese data are not presented forcefully in the prior text of the CD.#9 As I mentioned earlier, I suggest a systematic description and summary of effects of copollutants.#12 this paragraph (or a separate one) could include a discussion of the fact that there are likelydifferent mechanisms for different PM-induced health effects. For instance, the mechanismsunderlying air pollution aggravation of asthma will be entirely different from those underlyingdeath from congestive heart failure.#13 Should this paragraph be merged with # 4?Comparison with the November 1999 draft CD1) CASAC deemed that draft to be too encyclopedic and yet I don’t see that the currentdraft is any less so.2) CASAC recommended emphasis on cardiovascular effects and on infant mortality. Iexpected to see a separate table for these outcomes—certainly for infant mortality asthere are only a few studies.3) Is there really any more risk assessment in this draft than in the 1999 draft?4) I believe that the strategy used to select the articles cited in the CD is still lacking inspite of a specific request following the last meeting of CASAC.A - 51